Has anybody played with multiple identical speaker placement in HT?

[leadbelly]

I am specifically referring to the usage of more than 1 speaker (not driver) at a given surround location (e.g. 2 rears, 2 left surrounds, etc.). I have 6 identical Mission bookshelf speakers that I have decided to investigate playing around with and was wondering if anybody else had investigated this.

I have read reports from several sources that indicated that 2 rear speakers can be preferable, even if not driven by a dedicated channel (i.e. 2 in parallel/series from a 6.x decoder, optimally 2 individually from a 7.x decoder), so this is something obvious to try.

How about 2 at the surround position? Angled at 45 degrees and wired bipole? Or set back to back and wired dipole? Any work done on this? Any other novel combinations?

[tiroth]

Speak of the devil
Dipole (-ish?) surrounds

What you want sounds distinct from 7.1; 7.1 uses a pair of back rear speakers but does some steering so that this back pair isn't mono. And this pair is completely distinct from the regular surround (side firing) speakers. It sounds to me like your question is not "Should we use more rear speakers" but "Should we use rear speakers with dipole, or dipole-like radiation."

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by tiroth
What you want sounds distinct from 7.1; 7.1 uses a pair of back rear speakers but does some steering so that this back pair isn't mono. And this pair is completely distinct from the regular surround (side firing) speakers. It sounds to me like your question is not "Should we use more rear speakers" but "Should we use rear speakers with dipole, or dipole-like radiation."

No, actually. The 2 rear speakers, in mono, is not something I dreamed up, I have read more than 1 report of that being preferred by some. In fact, it may even by mentioned in my receiver manual, I can't remember.

I am more interested in similar ideas at the surround (side) position, not the rear. Such as the 45 degrees and back-to-back ideas I suggested.

[tiroth]

I didn't mean to imply that it is a new idea, what I meant is that it is the radiation pattern that seems to be of interest to you. The dual surround backs is from the THX spec.

I'm also interested in discussing as I am in the middle of experimenting with this too. What I've read is that dipole tends to be preferable for the sides, and direct firing for the surround back. This makes sense to me, because there doesn't seem to be much point in two surround back dipoles firing into each other out of phase!

(Although, preference for dipoles is not universal. Especially for multichannel music direct radiating or bipole tends to be preferred. This isn't of much interest to me though as I don't listen to multichannel music)

I made some comments in the thread I linked about the ambient feel of listening in the dipole null. At the moment, I preferred placing the speaker slightly behind the listening position (maybe 8-12") so that I am not entirely in the null. Changing this position allows tuning of the degree of ambience vs. HF extension.

[leadbelly]

Well, I guess it's just me and you interested in this....

I will get around to testing the dual rear speaker idea, but that is easy and the results not easily generalized to other systems since my receiver has proprietary 6.1 decoding and not Dolby or dts 6.1, so what I will find will likely be specific to my system. I don't mind the single rear speaker now, i find it works well with the effects that make heavy use of the rear channel such as gunshots, etc.

Your dipole speaker certainly has the advantage of being suitable for a wide range of placement. Have you varied the delay time at all as you move it around?

[Cal Weldon]

I'm interested also. I am currently working on my HT system. I am building new left, right and center speakers and using my four Polk R15's wired in parallel for the rear (4 ohms). I plan to lay them on their sides, stacked on a shelf with about a 45 degree offset to allow for better tweeter dispersion and still have them in line vertically. I am running an H/K 5.1 system. Or is that 5.2? There are two subwoofer outputs.

How are things in Cowtown leadbelly. Pretty quiet without the Flames I'm guessing.

Cal

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by Cal Weldon
How are things in Cowtown leadbelly. Pretty quiet without the Flames I'm guessing.

Geez don't bring up the Flames. I grew up in Montreal; this is the 2nd time I watch a pro sports lockout/strike just kill the momentum of a Canadian team...

I guess you mean the surrounds? This thread's kinda lazy for mixing up "surround" with "rear" speakers.

[Cal Weldon]

Hi leadbelly,

I must admit I'm not up on the terms but the H/K AVR 40 unit I have calls them rear speakers. The "rear" channels are only 25 wpc as compared with the 55 wpc for the fronts. Does this make them surround or rear? It would be good to know.

Go Canucks. Flames had their chance last year. Lets hope they settle it before it's too late. Oops this is getting off topic.

Cal

[Kittle]

Not sure how this pertains to what your trying to do.. but..

my HT setup has 4 identical speakers (all 3-way floorstanders) for front and rear channels.
I set things up that way to give the greatest versatility between music and HT. It also makes up for having the rear or surrounds a good distance away.
And best of all -- it sounds great.

[tiroth]

Another thread in which no one agrees.

http://audiocircle.com/circles/viewt...er=asc&start=0